Documentary stating 5-20 % of "mined" diamonds are really of lab origin...

[acaw2015]

I am watching a documentary where someone "within the diamond industry" is stating that 5-20 % of "mined" diamonds are really of lab origin. That the diamonds are being mixed somewhere in the supply chain. Not only melee, also bigger sizes. Has anyone here heard this? It is not very surprising maybe if you think about it, but I was surprised.

 

[Diamond Girl 21]

I heard they were mixing them in with EG mele, so GIA came up with a machine where the diamonds are scanned and you can easily separate the two.

I also read about a larger diamond that was submitted to the lab that had characteristics of both EG and LG. After further investigation, I believe they found it was a larger EG stone with LG on top. Sorry, I don't remember all the specifics. I guess that's why research is so important. There will always be people trying to run a scam.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I am watching a documentary where someone "within the diamond industry" is stating that 5-20 % of "mined" diamonds are really of lab origin. That the diamonds are being mixed somewhere in the supply chain. Not only melee, also bigger sizes. Has anyone here heard this? It is not very surprising maybe if you think about it, but I was surprised.

It is bound to happen, but all labs easily identify larger stones and anyone foolish enough to buy a large uncertfied diamond deserves to have their money taken away.
For smaller stones there have been cases where natural diamonds were mixed in with grown diamonds. Consumers who thought they were saving the planet were upset to find some diamonds fluoresced blue to cheap long wave UV torches (proof they were natural).
The best tool for anyone who wants to be sure their small sized or melee is a cheap torch because that UV creates the strongest blue reaction in natural diamonds.
of 10 diamonds at least 2 will light up. Diamonds GIA grade as Faint can apppear Strong Blue.
GIA established fluorescent grading using the oldfashioned black light tubes we gemmologists use for colored gem identification. An historic mistake they should correct.

 

[yssie]

I also read about a larger diamond that was submitted to the lab that had characteristics of both EG and LG. After further investigation, I believe they found it was a larger EG stone with LG on top.

Like putting a souffle back in the oven for a touch more rise

 

[MagpieMama]

Would you mind sharing the name of the documentary? Would be very interested to watch!

 

[Diamond Girl 21]

Like putting a souffle back in the oven for a touch more rise

Yes! Love the analogy! Since they were caught, I guess it fell flat.

 

[acaw2015]

Would you mind sharing the name of the documentary? Would be very interested to watch!

I should have thought of this! Was so shocked the only thing I thought of was posting my question here while watching.
Nothing lasts forever, https://m.imdb.com/title/tt16317380/

 

[acaw2015]

I heard they were mixing them in with EG mele, so GIA came up with a machine where the diamonds are scanned and you can easily separate the two.

I also read about a larger diamond that was submitted to the lab that had characteristics of both EG and LG. After further investigation, I believe they found it was a larger EG stone with LG on top. Sorry, I don't remember all the specifics. I guess that's why research is so important. There will always be people trying to run a scam.

Well, the documentary mentions these boxes, saying they can't notice lab Vs mined at all... Like they are fake, only made to make people less worried.

 

[LilAlex]

It's like Johnny Appleseed. Sneak up to the kimberlite pipes and shovel in LGDs. The perfect crime.

Maybe 5 - 20% are actually lab-created but I suspect they are not uniformly distributed across vendors. Like how "almost all Cartier Love jewelry is fake" but the stuff at Cartier generally isn't -- so the "statistics" are unhelpful inside the boutique.

 

[acaw2015]

It is bound to happen, but all labs easily identify larger stones and anyone foolish enough to buy a large uncertfied diamond deserves to have their money taken away.
For smaller stones there have been cases where natural diamonds were mixed in with grown diamonds. Consumers who thought they were saving the planet were upset to find some diamonds fluoresced blue to cheap long wave UV torches (proof they were natural).
The best tool for anyone who wants to be sure their small sized or melee is a cheap torch because that UV creates the strongest blue reaction in natural diamonds.
of 10 diamonds at least 2 will light up. Diamonds GIA grade as Faint can apppear Strong Blue.
GIA established fluorescent grading using the oldfashioned black light tubes we gemmologists use for colored gem identification. An historic mistake they should correct.

I am so happy that you replied! Very interesting how lab buyers happened to get mined diamonds, my first thought was re mined buyers getting labs but obviously a mixing goes both ways.

If "only" 20 % of mined diamonds have flourescense, how can a consumer (or anyone) identify the other 80 %? I ask because in my country, people rarely buy anything over 0,5 ct, which is actually considered overly large here. I know it is prudent to get a lab report, but people would look at me strange if I would ask if they have one. One jeweler told me they don't get reports for individual stones less than a carat. If those stones are mixed, then that is a huge market share for mixed.

I also would love to hear your thoughts re the lab reports. According to this documentary the stones today are impossible to identify. When in the process do the stones get lab reports? In the documentary they interviewed chinese growers and Indian cutters and apparently the material is being mixed somewhere in between. Also, if the lab writing the report gets the stones after cutting, do they actually do that thorough of an analysis to check if the stone is lab? I have never seen a report stating the stone is/is not lab or anything re origin/country, it simply states the four C's.

 

[acaw2015]

... also, one guy in the documentary wanted the make lab diamonds flouresce pink... I am thinking, if it is possible, it should (?) be possible to make them flouresce blue too? If there's money involved I think some people would do anything.

 

[MagpieMama]

I should have thought of this! Was so shocked the only thing I thought of was posting my question here while watching.
Nothing lasts forever, https://m.imdb.com/title/tt16317380/

Thank you!

 

[Diamond Girl 21]

I took my DG lab course at GIA in 2017. At that time, my instructor said that proving diamonds were natural was going to be extremely important, especially going forward. We were instructed about the differences between EG and LG, and how to identify certain clues about the origin. Sometimes advanced lab testing was the only way to be sure.

There have been submissions with the goal of cheating the system. Those people/companies are usually banned from using GIA services in the future.

The labs are aware of these issues. They constantly work on research and development to stay on top of things. Technology is always improving on both sides. I don't know where we stand on the topic currently.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I am so happy that you replied! Very interesting how lab buyers happened to get mined diamonds, my first thought was re mined buyers getting labs but obviously a mixing goes both ways. Replies below

Firstly some theory.
Grown diamonds are type II, very very rare in nature. They have unique properties and have always been able to be identified for at least 50 years, and GIA reports that a diamond is type II because some collectors seek them out for rarity reasons.
It is possible to make Type I grown diamonds. But they do not fluoresce in Blue and are usually fancy yellow. Anyone buying fancy colored diamonds has ALWAYS needed a lab report because there have always been treatments and cheats.

If "only" 20 % of mined diamonds have floresce, how can a consumer (or anyone) identify the other 80 %?
In that case I was referring to shoulder stones and tennis braclets etc with small stones where there are lots. Most are grown with HPHT and if they are colorless they fluoresce usually orange - never seen an orange fluoro in colorless diamond - only in blue diamonds.

I ask because in my country, people rarely buy anything over 0,5 ct, which is actually considered overly large here. I know it is prudent to get a lab report, but people would look at me strange if I would ask if they have one. One jeweler told me they don't get reports for individual stones less than a carat. If those stones are mixed, then that is a huge market share for mixed.
My advice is simply only buy fluorescent diamonds.
TRICK - a $5 UV torch will show many more diamonds as fluorescent Blue than as graded by GIA. GIA use the wrong frequency (365nm) and the torch produces 405nm which is great because it identifies the diamond has nitrogen in bonded groups of three. Not all nitrogen in diamonds has managed to get together and party on, only about a third of colorless diamonds. Nitrogen presence is type I by definition and is 98% of all diamonds.
You can make sure a natural diamond is not hazy or milky by holding it close to a old fashioned daylight fluorescent tube or in shaded daylight. Never direct sunlight. Look with a loupe. Ideally have a comparison nice diamond close to the stone being checked. The cause of milkiness is Internal Graining (missed most times by labs) or clouds. Extreme twinning can be a problem too.
I also would love to hear your thoughts re the lab reports. According to this documentary the stones today are impossible to identify. When in the process do the stones get lab reports? In the documentary they interviewed chinese growers and Indian cutters and apparently the material is being mixed somewhere in between. Also, if the lab writing the report gets the stones after cutting, do they actually do that thorough of an analysis to check if the stone is lab?
Labs clearly identify diamonds as natural or grown. So if you want a non blue fluoro diamond please insist on a lab report.
But FYI - blue fluorescent diamonds are much cheaper and more beautiful, they appear whiter in good lighting. The reason for the discounts it totally fake once you know how to screen out hozy milky diamonds!

Most of the lab separation is simply a version of what I wrote with some brand of instrument doing the work. Most instruments say Natural or Refer. Refer means the diamond is type II and could be natural or grown. Then that stone needs more expensive spectrographic analysis ideally after cooling with liquid Nitrogen.
I have never seen a report stating the stone is/is not lab or anything re origin/country, it simply states the four C's.
There is only one real classification of origin possible - that is for Argyle pink diamonds. Colorless diamonds can be identified in large numbers of rough, but not after polishing as the deep sources and continental Gondwana land mean sources popped up all over the place.

Finally, Much of my learning has come from my friend from Vancouver, Branko Dejalin and his partner Dusan (who is the scientist in the muck raking video) along with my Aussie friend John Chapman. They are also the research team that provide services to ID Argyle pink diamonds.

 

[acaw2015]

Firstly some theory.
Grown diamonds are type II, very very rare in nature. They have unique properties and have always been able to be identified for at least 50 years, and GIA reports that a diamond is type II because some collectors seek them out for rarity reasons.
It is possible to make Type I grown diamonds. But they do not fluoresce in Blue and are usually fancy yellow. Anyone buying fancy colored diamonds has ALWAYS needed a lab report because there have always been treatments and cheats.

If "only" 20 % of mined diamonds have floresce, how can a consumer (or anyone) identify the other 80 %?
In that case I was referring to shoulder stones and tennis braclets etc with small stones where there are lots. Most are grown with HPHT and if they are colorless they fluoresce usually orange - never seen an orange fluoro in colorless diamond - only in blue diamonds.

My advice is simply only buy fluorescent diamonds.

Thank you for your reply!
I prefer lab diamonds, no question about that, but I think it must be hard for consumers in general to know what they are buying and I don't like that. At least I want to know what I am buying, whatever I chose to buy.
People in general don't even know about the 4 C's, let alone about flourescence (I hardly know how to spell it!). Given the differences in pricing, this is simply not ok. The market of diamonds is so much based on trust and I am thinking that when this cat gets out, trust will be lost. And what then?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Thank you for your reply!
I prefer lab diamonds, no question about that, but I think it must be hard for consumers in general to know what they are buying and I don't like that. At least I want to know what I am buying, whatever I chose to buy.
People in general don't even know about the 4 C's, let alone about flourescence (I hardly know how to spell it!). Given the differences in pricing, this is simply not ok. The market of diamonds is so much based on trust and I am thinking that when this cat gets out, trust will be lost. And what then?

The study of gemmology (actually spelt with two 'mm's for a weird historic reason, and Fluoro has the U before the O) kicked off in Britian in 1908 after the rapid deployment of flame fusion technology to grow synthetic ruby and sapphire in 1902.
This created the need for training for jewellers not to get cheated or to cheat.
So everything new is old again.
GIA, sadly, is very much a money making machine. It could train its gem students to use inexpensive tools and techniques to identify cheats and fakes in the diamond world, just as it does with moissanite and CZ. But that does not sell $5k kit.
My set up in both stores costs less than $500. $5 UV torch. Storng magnet and this tool.

Gemetrix Products

product description for a device (PL-inspector) to distinguish between natural and synthetic diamonds

www.gemetrix.com.au

 

[acaw2015]

The study of gemmology (actually spelt with two 'mm's for a weird historic reason, and Fluoro has the U before the O) kicked off in Britian in 1908 after the rapid deployment of flame fusion technology to grow synthetic ruby and sapphire in 1902.
This created the need for training for jewellers not to get cheated or to cheat.
So everything new is old again.
GIA, sadly, is very much a money making machine. It could train its gem students to use inexpensive tools and techniques to identify cheats and fakes in the diamond world, just as it does with moissanite and CZ. But that does not sell $5k kit.
My set up in both stores costs less than $500. $5 UV torch. Storng magnet and this tool.

Gemetrix Products

product description for a device (PL-inspector) to distinguish between natural and synthetic diamonds

www.gemetrix.com.au

Interesting!

 

[Karl_K]

The problem with this kind of thing is that you can find "someone "within the diamond industry"" to support almost any kind of claim.
Brings to mind the guy who claimed all diamonds are warped other than the ones he sells.

 

[yssie]

Brings to mind the guy who claimed all diamonds are warped other than the ones he sells.

Blast from the past

 

[Ibrakeforpossums]

OMG is that Aja Raden? I love her books. But she lives to stir it up, no question.

 

[LightBright]

Kind of like 20% of the “antique jewelry“ on the market is modern made in Turkey, Argentina or India…

I’m glad at least the Labs can clarify.

 

[Diamond Girl 21]

The problem with this kind of thing is that you can find "someone "within the diamond industry"" to support almost any kind of claim.
Brings to mind the guy who claimed all diamonds are warped other than the ones he sells.

I remember that guy. I "won" his book, and totally panicked after I read it because I thought my new diamond might be warped. Fun times!

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I remember that guy. I "won" his book, and totally panicked after I read it because I thought my new diamond might be warped. Fun times!

Fred Cuellar. Has no idea about science, light or optics.

 

[yssie]

I remember that guy. I "won" his book, and totally panicked after I read it because I thought my new diamond might be warped. Fun times!

I’m cackling, I’m sorry This is just the worst!!

 

[Diamond Girl 21]

I’m cackling, I’m sorry This is just the worst!!

You have no idea! I was young and foolish. I actually emailed him with questions. Guess what? He never answered.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

You have no idea! I was young and foolish. I actually emailed him with questions. Guess what? He never answered.

Do'H!
You already had a diamond.
You probably couldn't return it

 

[Diamond Girl 21]

Do'H!
You already had a diamond.
You probably couldn't return it

Exactly! Live and learn.

 

[Ada Diamonds CEO]

I say this as the lab diamond expert that Netflix chose for their (excellent) documentary about diamonds. The Showtime 'documentary' is not at all factually accurate. The completely unsubstantiated claim that 20% of 'natural' melee is in fact lab grown is simply not true.

It's $6 a carat for GIA to automatically screen melee to determine origin, and there are numerous devices from De Beers and other reputable labs that can determine origin of diamonds in set jewelry.

Is there some mixing? Yes. I've even put put press releases about it and had to implement enhanced screening processes to ensure our melee is as advertised.

But is there an massive, active conspiracy as alleged in the 'documentary?" There is a reason their lab diamond expert protagonist is an Uber driver, not a CEO of one of the largest diamond growers in the world.

Somewhat relatedly, I'm lecturing at GIA's headquarters tomorrow about lab diamonds and will be tangentially covering a number of topics in this thread, if you want to join the livestream. Details are here:

I'm Guest Lecturing at GIA HQ Tomorrow - Beyond the 4Cs of Lab Diamonds - Watch Livestream March 1st @ 3:15PM PT

Hi fellow diamond geeks- GIA asked my cofounder and I to speak to their graduate gemologists on the quality characteristics of lab diamonds beyond the 4 C's. The lecture will be tomorrow March 1st at 3:15 PM PST (UTC -08:00) and livestreamed on GIA's Facebook and Instagram pages and posted to...

www.pricescope.com

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

But is there an massive, active conspiracy as alleged in the 'documentary?" There is a reason their lab diamond expert protagonist is an Uber driver, not a CEO of one of the largest diamond growers in the world.

Somewhat relatedly, I'm lecturing at GIA's headquarters tomorrow about lab diamonds and will be tangentially covering a number of topics in this thread, if you want to join the livestream. Details are here:

I'm Guest Lecturing at GIA HQ Tomorrow - Beyond the 4Cs of Lab Diamonds - Watch Livestream March 1st @ 3:15PM PT

Hi fellow diamond geeks- GIA asked my cofounder and I to speak to their graduate gemologists on the quality characteristics of lab diamonds beyond the 4 C's. The lecture will be tomorrow March 1st at 3:15 PM PST (UTC -08:00) and livestreamed on GIA's Facebook and Instagram pages and posted to...

www.pricescope.com

Hi Jason,
Dusan is a serious scientist and runs the Mediterranean Gem 0conferences (with two of my scientist friends).
Have not seen the video and doubt he is an uber driver, especially as a scientist who identifies grown vs natural diamonds.
Hope your talk went well - can you share a youtube link?

 

[MagpieMama]

Hi Jason,
Dusan is a serious scientist and runs the Mediterranean Gem 0conferences (with two of my scientist friends).
Have not seen the video and doubt he is an uber driver, especially as a scientist who identifies grown vs natural diamonds.
Hope your talk went well - can you share a youtube link?

I watched the documentary - Dusan was in fact moonlighting as an Uber driver, in the wake of all the expensive “black box” type apparatus for identifying lab vs natural diamonds, there seemed to be a decrease in demand for a serious lab like his.

It was really very sad. In my opinion he very much came across as a serious scientist. He seems to be critical of the idea the these $5,000 “fool proof” detection apparatus were as accurate as they claimed.

I hope he finds a new niche for his valuable skills.